Atlanta Employment Lawyer Blog

In 2009, the ADA Amendments Act took effect. One of the objectives of the ADAAA was both to cover more people and to give those people with disabilities greater protection from discrimination at work.

One of the groups still experiencing very low employment rates are those people with mental disabilities. The new amendments provide greater coverage for people with “psychiatric and mental disabilities.” At a recent ADAAA EEOC hearing, EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum noted that it is important to continued knocking down barriers to employment - increasing evidence shows that people with mental disability “can perform well” in the workplace.

As stated by the executive director of the Georgia Advocacy Office, “[V]irtually everybody with a disability can work.” The biggest obstacle to employment of persons with mental disabilities remains the “consciously and unconsciously held beliefs” of employers about persons with such disabilities. Sometimes an accommodation “simple as a flexible work schedule” is all it takes to employ a qualified worker with disabilities.

Continue reading " Georgia Employment Of Persons With Mental Disabilities Encouraged " »

Over the last several years employers have started to recognize that sexual comments, lewd jokes and other types of sexual behavior may make employees uncomfortable and efforts should be made to eliminate offensive behavior. Allowing unwelcome conduct to continue may create both a bad working environment and lead to sexual harassment lawsuits.

But what about when a client is the harasser? Are employees supposed to put up with crude behavior for the sake of a company?

A recent third-party harassment case out of the 4th Circuit Court said “no,” finding that an employer may be liable for sexual harassment if it allows a client to harass an employee.

In EEOC v. Cromer Food Servs. Inc., the job of Homer R. Howard, an employee of CFS, a food-stocking company, was to go to clients’ businesses and stock their vending machines. On a daily basis while at a client's business Howard was stalked, called names and questioned about his sexual orientation.

Howard complained to CFS – including three supervisors, a manager and chairman of the board of directors of CFS - but nothing was done. CFS called Howard a “cry baby” and said that they couldn’t do anything about the harassment because the harassers weren’t under the control of the company.

The appeals court disagreed, determining that “CFS is liable if it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take appropriate actions to halt it.”

Continue reading " Allowing Clients To Harass Employees May Lead To Lawsuits " »

In a significant employment discrimination decision, the U.S Supreme Court has just ruled that an Army Reservist who had a civilian job as a hospital technician could bring a lawsuit for employment bias and discrimination against him due to his commitment to the military.

In addition to being a positive result for the man who brought the lawsuit, this case is important because of the theory the court relied on to find that an employer may be liable for discrimination. Under what is called “cat’s paw” liability, the court determined that an employee may be able to hold an employer liable where the illegal bias of a supervisor who does not have the authority to make an ultimate employment decision – such as hiring or firing – serves as a “motivating factor” in the decision making process.

Here, an unbiased human resources manager fired the technician based on negative performance reviews. But, the technician relied on the “cat’s paw” theory to argue that his firing was discriminatory because the performance reviews were illegally biased. The technician claimed that his two immediate supervisors were anti-military and wrote negative comments about him in their reviews. Discrimination against those serving in the military is a violation of the Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act . The human resources manager then took these findings at face value, and fired the man.

Continue reading " “Cat’s Paw” Liability Upheld " »

A recent case determined a man may bring an alcoholism retaliation lawsuit against his employer under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Under the FMLA, employees battling “serious health conditions” may be able to take up to 12-weeks of unpaid leave. In the recent case, a male employee who was suffering from alcoholism requested leave to receive treatment. Officials at his company, John Crane, Inc., approved the leave.

But, even though the company approved the leave they still docked the employee “absence points.” Less than 2 weeks after the man came back to work, he was fired. The company blamed it on “absenteeism.”

A Texas court questioned the company’s reasons for firing the man, and Judge Janis G. Jack reached the following conclusions:

• The employer may have used “absenteeism” as an excuse to fire the employee, when they may have really been firing him for his alcoholism;
• Alcoholism could be considered a “serious health condition” entitling employees to leave under the FMLA;
• Even if alcoholism isn’t covered by the FMLA, the employee relied on his employer’s word that he was in taking the leave, so he shouldn’t be fired; and
• It could be considered retaliation to fire someone on approved leave for alcohol treatment.

Continue reading " Seeking Treatment For Alcoholism May Entitle Employees To Leave Under The FMLA " »